Revised Code of Washington
Wash. Rev. Code § 50.32.150 (2026)
Jurisdiction of court
✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases:
SyfertCases citing this section
WA-LEGapp.leg.wa.gov
JustiaTitle on Justia
CornellLII Search
CasesGoogle Scholar
In all court proceedings under or pursuant to this title the decision of the commissioner shall be prima facie correct, and the burden of proof shall be upon the party attacking the same.
If the court shall determine that the commissioner has acted within his or her power and has correctly construed the law, the decision of the commissioner shall be confirmed; otherwise, it shall be reversed or modified. In case of a modification or reversal the superior court shall refer the same to the commissioner with an order directing him or her to proceed in accordance with the findings of the court.
Whenever any order and notice of assessment shall have become final in accordance with the provisions of this title, the court shall upon application of the commissioner enter a judgment in the amount provided for in said order and notice of assessment, and said judgment shall have and be given the same effect as if entered pursuant to civil action instituted in said court.
Notes:
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56
cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1953–2024 · leading case: Affordable Cabs, Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 101 P.3d 440 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004).
Affordable Cabs, Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 101 P.3d 440 (Wash. Ct. App. 2004). “RCW 50.32.150; RCW 34.05.570(l)(a). In addressing mixed questions of law and fact, we give the same deference to the agency’s factual findings as in other circumstances, but we apply the law to the facts de novo.”
Henson v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 779 P.2d 715 (Wash. 1989). “The remaining and primary issue before us is one of law, that is, whether this refusal to attend the AA meetings fits the legal definition of disqualifying "misconduct." As to the burden of proof, on appeal the burden is on Henson, as the party attacking the decision, to prove…”
Safeco Ins. v. Meyering, 687 P.2d 195 (Wash. 1984). “RCW 50.32.150. Where an agency is charged with administering a special field of law and endowed with quasi-judicial functions, such as the Department of Employment Security, because of the agency's expertise in that field, its construction of words should be accorded substantial…”
W. Ports v. Emp. SEC. Dept., 41 P.3d 510 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “" RCW 50.32.150. The standards of review of an agency order are set out in RCW 34.”
W. Ports Transp., Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 110 Wash. App. 440 (Wash. Ct. App. 2002). “” RCW 50.32.150. The standards of review of an agency order are set out in RCW 34.”
Ayers v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 536 P.2d 610 (Wash. 1975). “RCW 50.32.150 [1] still provides that on judicial review of departmental decisions, the decision of the commissioner shall be deemed prima facie correct, and places the burden of proof upon the party attacking such decision.”
Terry v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 919 P.2d 111 (Wash. Ct. App. 1996). “6 RCW 50.32.150. See In re Townsend, 54 Wn.”
Korte v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., 734 P.2d 939 (Wash. Ct. App. 1987). “RCW 50.32.150 makes the Commissioner's decision prima facie correct.”
Okamoto v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 27 P.3d 1203 (Wash. Ct. App. 2001). “[when] he or she has been discharged or suspended for misconduct connected with his or her work.”
Thomas v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 176 Wash. App. 809 (Wash. Ct. App. 2013). “” RCW 50.32.150; Anderson v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 135 Wn.”
Dermond v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 947 P.2d 1271 (Wash. Ct. App. 1997). “RCW 50.32.150; RCW 34.05.570(l)(a). Whether Dermond’s behavior was misconduct presents a mixed question of law and fact.”
Read v. Emp. Sec. Dep't, 813 P.2d 1262 (Wash. Ct. App. 1991). “RCW 50.32.150. As Safeco Ins. Cos. v. Meyering, 102 Wn.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.